Posted By: JoinerWhy is it all about us, us, us? Gaia couldn't give a monkey's dick.

Do you see yourself as separate from Gaia, a guest or invader, visiting from outside, and Gaia deciding whether to allow us to stay, to be mortally wounded, or to get rid of us?

We are part of Gaia, or more strongly we ARE Gaia and Gaia is us, and all the other inhabitants too. It's not optional, how we behave. If we harm Gaia it's like cutting off our own arm. Whatever Gaia does with or to us, it's doing to itself, so ridiculous to say 'Gaia couldn't give a monkey's dick'.

That's a very Old Testamount way of looking at it. Humanity came along when? 4,000 years ago, give or take a few?

We're accidents of Nature, mutated things cursed with consciousness and awareness (real or imagined), with a developed capacity for imagination that comes with a built-in fear of our actually being totally insignificant in the greater scheme of things - actually arrogance.

Get rid of "us" and Gaia gets back what's hers and gets on with just "being".

Posted By: JSHarrisAs an aquaintance of mine is fond of quoting: "The stone age didn't end because they ran out of rocks"..............

The stone age ended because people found something better (bronze). So point to the something which is better than oil. The stone age would have ended if they ran out of rocks so... what, exactly? I've heard this quote a few times and wondered if it actually has any use other than as a “clever” but meaningless dismissal?

I don't understand the 'Gaia' concept. It sounds like anthropomorphism to me and is just another symptom of human arrogance or self obsession (not arbitrarily a bad thing). We are what happens when you leave a cloud of dust for long enough! We are the universe become concious. It is all about us because we are the reference point. There can be no other. If we all die in some catastrophe then hey ho. It is meaningless as the only thing that applies meaning to things is us. Of course aliens may exist and they may have the same views and then both of us would be right (from our own reference point).

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: Ed Davies</cite><blockquote aria-level="0" aria-posinset="0" aria-setsize="0"><cite aria-level="0" aria-posinset="0" aria-setsize="0">Posted By: JSHarris</cite>As an aquaintance of mine is fond of quoting: "The stone age didn't end because they ran out of rocks"..............</blockquote>

The stone age ended because people found something better (bronze). So point to the something which is better than oil. The stone age would have ended if they ran out of rocks so... what, exactly? I've heard this quote a few times and wondered if it actually has any use other than as a “clever” but meaningless dismissal?</blockquote>

Lots of things are better than oil but currently there is no good economic alternative thus we remain at the brink, just before we down our stone axe and pick up the bronze.

Posted By: pmagowanWe are what happens when you leave a cloud of dust for long enough!

That sad sterile belief (theyoung religion of Scientism) has only existed for 350yrs - a necessary period of Austerity (!) to leave space for the addition of Rationalism to the human capability, but now run its course as a an obligatory belief that excludes other beliefs as heresy.

wish I didn't bother......Nuclear is great in some respects....The waste dumped at sea makes the oceans a massive lucky dip, you never know what the next fish will look like....yellow, green, 5 fins etc.The future generations will sort it out anyway eh?On a more serious note apparently some Scottish waste is dumped close to a cliff way up in Western Scotland. The sea down the west is highly contaminated but great for removing body hair!!!! Quick dip your done,Gusty.

That belief has existed for less time than that. But this is the thing about discovery all the latest knowledge is recent. Old knowledge is out of date and therefore updated or replaced. We do what humans are designed to do, we think. This is what allows us to dominate the world. And when we decide that we like the world to have lots of other animals in it, and we value green spaces, clean air and water, then we think of a way to achieve it.

I am not keen on religion (of any sort) as I feel it is an excuse not to think. I don't like dogma and I don't see what is wrong with rationalism. It is rational to be flexible to new knowledge and to update old theories if there is new evidence. It has got us quite a long way and I think there is still a way to go.

High level radioactive waste isn't dumped at sea, it's presently securely stored and not exposed to the environment.

Low level waste can be disposed of at sea (or certainly was some years ago) and in some landfill sites, but is normally contained within what were colloquially called "Big Berthas" during my brief association with this business, a long, long time ago. A "Big Bertha" was (maybe still is) a reinforced concrete drum, with walls around a foot thick, filled with compressed low level waste packed inside double sealed plastic bags. The whole thing was concreted shut when full to seal it further.

Do people generally know what the vast majority of low level waste really is? I suspect not. The bulk of it is the disposable gloves, overalls and overshoes worn by staff who work in the facilities and which are discarded at the end of each shift. 99.999% of this will have no radioactive material on it at all, but because it's been worn inside a facility it will automatically be classified as low level waste and treated as if it were contaminated. By definition it isn't hazardous to any significant degree, because people have been wearing it during their day at work.

Some nuclear facilities have had low level radioactive material leaks in the past, not generally radioactive waste, more commonly the accidental release of contaminated cooling water. In the case of low-level coastal contamination this is the most probable source of contamination stories, although the contamination in some areas from depleted uranium shell test firing is significantly greater in magnitude (Kircudbright and the Solway Firth being the best known example, perhaps, but there are other places on land that are as bad or worse, I believe).

As I've said previously, I'm neither pro nor anti nuclear, but for those that are either anti or pro their points are probably better made if they stick to facts, rather than myths.

Posted By: pmagowanI don't see what is wrong with rationalism ... It has got us quite a long way and I think there is still a way to go

Totally agree, as above, v important that it's now firmly anchored in humans' range of options.

But when rationalism insists that it's the only legitimate mode, that's when it becomes the nastily repressive religion of Scientism. Other modes can and should co-exist, even if diametrically contradictory. Life is meant to be creatively ambiguous - the desperate search for consistency and certainty is not Rationalism - it's submission (for the sake of peace of mind) to the dogmatisms of Scientism, because for some people ambiguity is terrifying.

I don't understand what you mean by 'gotcha'! And I am unaware of any useful philosophy diametrically opposed to rationalism but I am happy to be informed of one. I don't mind fuzzy or fluffy world views because they are often pleasant and comforting and I am guilty of romantic thought myself. I do think that you need to use a reliable method, however, when making important decisions about the future of humankind. I have a reasonably clear idea of what I would like our target to be. It probably aligns quite closely with yours. The problem is how you get there. On such a massive project of human endeavour with importance for the future of all I will stick with proven methods of achieving results.

<blockquote><cite>Posted By: gustyturbine</cite>JS, you been fishin recently??????????A little tongue in cheeck granted but if readings are higher in certain areas then surely there must be cause?</blockquote>

Depends on the level of the readings and the source of the radiation that's causing higher readings in some areas, and may not always be down to our activity, as the earth has a lot of natural radiation, particularly in some areas.

For example, behind my mothers old place there was a stretch of open moorland (this is down in West Cornwall). Around 40 years ago I borrowed a Geiger-Muller counter from work and went poking around the lumps of granite sticking up all over the place. Many were completely off the scale, even on the highest range, and would have had a nuclear workplace closed down in seconds for being over the safe limit. Similarly, a radon survey on my old cottage down there showed levels that were around 200 times over the safe exposure limit (cost me a fortune to get sorted). None of this was man made, it just so happens that fairly large hunks of the British Isles are made up of fairly radioactive rock.

As I mentioned before, dumping at sea was restricted to low level waste, most of which wouldn't have even been noticeably radioactive, and took place in deep undersea trenches, a long way off shore. I'm not even sure that it still goes on, as I think Greenpeace were pretty effective at getting it stopped a fairly long time ago.

There have certainly been leaks from a few power stations over the years, perhaps the two up north that are best known are the Windscale (what is now Sellafield) fire in the late fifties that released a fair bit of material into the local environment and into the North Channel, some of which still persists, and the small leak from Dounreay a few years ago, which was the result of a cooling water problem, I believe. The single biggest sea contamination problem in Scotland I know of (because I lived nearby for a few years) is the depleted uranium contamination off Kircudbright in the Solway Firth, from testing shells on the old range that used to be there.

Having said that, the levels of radiation from these leaks were pretty low, certainly lower than the radiation from an average bit of granite, or even that around in many of the caves and potholes in the Peak District (some of which are way over the safe exposure limit for a workplace!).

Posted By: CWattersDo you have to pay tax on the 2p? I mean it's not FIT or is it?

Good point. I suppose technically you'd have to declare that extra 2p as income, but in reality you're probably only talking about £15kWp-1y-1, so I doubt the revenue are going to be beating your door down about it for a <4kW system.

saw mention of Davy Jones, and had to add my own comment - it is energy related, honest. I read that he had married a woman thirty years his junior, and was quoted as claiming that when they first met, she said 'let's run upstairs and make mad passionate love'. He replied that at his age, it would have to be either one or the other.

For what it's worth, I think I'm in the pmagowan camp - we have to be realistic. Many more people die mining coal in China, or at explosions on pipelines in Nigeria, than in the nuclear industry. Green is fine, but until we can produce it cheaply by the megawatt, developing countries (especially) are going to go for what is available.

Green has been associated with renewable only, why I prefer the term 'low carbon'.The IET mag has a large bit about 'King Coal' in it this month, not got around to reading it yet, that is for tomorrows coffee break.New Scientist this week has a bit about 'the future', but so did Tomorrows World. And it is tomorrow now.